Battlefield 3

[Stigmata]

Battlefieldo article re: Battlelog teaser reveal

It looks kind of like if Steam had been ported to OS X by Facebook.

 

[Ren.182]

Not as much destruction in BF3 apparently...

Damage is done to façades built onto structures, rather than the actual structures themselves – you’re not going to be bringing buildings down in Battlefield 3 like you did in Bad Company 2 outside of scripted moments in singleplayer and possible hard-coded objectives in multiplayer.

http://www.gamersbook.com/scene/news/destruction-of-battlefield-3-is-getting-nerfed/

I hope this only means the larger buildings will not collapse (Understandable as it would drastically change the balance of the level. But then again this would make the maps way more dynamic so it could be a good thing...). Hopefully the smaller buildings will still collapse as I think it'll look stupid just having building skeletons littering the map.

 

[Ennui]

That quote which they claim is by "EA DICE" is actually from an IGN article and was stated by the IGN writer not by DICE. (iirc of course)
I do think that most buildings won't be fully destructible, but if you ever thought that BF3 would have FULLY destructible buildings/skyscrapers/apartment blocks in an urban city environment then you were dreaming anyway. I think it will mostly be heavily destructible facades etc, with some smaller structures probably able to be fully destroyed like in BC2.

 

[knut]

i agree that people under an illusion that tower blocks and factories coming down akin to that of the earthquake footage being quite optimistic and foolish in their presumption, i knew right from the get go that that was all illusion and hype centered around the new engine, but i'm going to be a little sad if buildings on the same scale as that in BC2 don't come down. i'll be happy with the max size buildings and below from BC2 (large bunker building, houses, singe floor buildings) as destructable, and everything else (give or take) as just chunks and debris.

 

[Wanted Bob]

Yeah I dont care too much about large buildings being fully destructible (as cool as it would be). Having just the outer wall of those buildings be destructible is good enough for me.

 

[Vegeta897]

That quote which they claim is by "EA DICE" is actually from an IGN article and was stated by the IGN writer not by DICE. (iirc of course)
I do think that most buildings won't be fully destructible, but if you ever thought that BF3 would have FULLY destructible buildings/skyscrapers/apartment blocks in an urban city environment then you were dreaming anyway. I think it will mostly be heavily destructible facades etc, with some smaller structures probably able to be fully destroyed like in BC2.

i agree that people under an illusion that tower blocks and factories coming down akin to that of the earthquake footage being quite optimistic and foolish in their presumption, i knew right from the get go that that was all illusion and hype centered around the new engine, but i'm going to be a little sad if buildings on the same scale as that in BC2 don't come down. i'll be happy with the max size buildings and below from BC2 (large bunker building, houses, singe floor buildings) as destructable, and everything else (give or take) as just chunks and debris.

Sounds kind of apologist. Next are you going to say that the destruction isn't going to be fully dynamic, like they said?

Sorry if this post annoys anyone.

 

[Ren.182]

I don't mind as long as some buildings can be destroyed fully. At least up to the building sizes that are present in BC2... else we'd be taking a step backward really

 

[Krynn72]

Sounds kind of apologist. Next are you going to say that the destruction isn't going to be fully dynamic, like they said?

Sorry if this post annoys anyone.

God, you're such a whiny bitch Vegeta. Every thread you post in!

We'll see how it turns out though. "fully dynamic" is such a meaningless phrase, since it could mean anything. Truly dynamic anything is quite impossible with modern technological capabilities, so its anyone's guess as to how it will actually work when developers use such a bullshit phrase. I'd expect locational destruction using current techniques (multiple damage models) with chunks of the newly swapped model given a physics simulation to realistically fall and do damage, before disappearing after a set amount of time. I'd bet that the improvements over BC2 will simply be more damage level models (allowing for many more differing states of destruction), and the physics + collision debris. No lasting rubble though, and no fully collapsible structures, simply for the sake of keeping the game fun with persistent cover. The only time I can see a game like this having fully collapsible buildings is when the rubble created is persistent, thus allowing players to use that as cover.

 

[Ennui]

They pretty much directly stated in a magazine article a few months ago that the destruction works similar to BC2, so basically exactly what Krynn said. I think it was the PC Gamer UK cover story from a couple months back. They mention something like the average building in BC2 consisting of an average of 18 destructible pieces, whereas in BF3 the facade of the building we see get destroyed by the AT4 in that rooftop part of the Fault Line trailer has something like 70 or 80 individual pieces.

Besides that though Krynn pretty much has it right I'll wager, with it working same as BC2: "destructability" is just lots of fragmented damage models that have physics applied to them post-breaking. Not sure if they'll disappear or not though, since apparently debris can kill you now (in BC2 it can't, besides a building collapsing with Destruction 2.0).

 

[Krynn72]

T Not sure if they'll disappear or not though, since apparently debris can kill you now (in BC2 it can't, besides a building collapsing with Destruction 2.0).

If my experience in making destructible buildings is anything to go by, the pieces will probably disappear. The only way I can see them not doing so, is if the server processes the simulation before sending it to the players, rather than the simulation being calculated client-side as it is with modern engines. I'm almost positive that wont be the case, as there will be a significant delay between the explosive going off, and the resulting damage and debris happening. Thats because the server would have to calculate and record all that information, in addition to all the other calculations its doing (which might include other building destruction calculations) and then send all that information (in addition to all the other information a server normally sends) to every client. Only then will the rubble pieces be in the same exact location for each player and be able to provide cover that is functionally consistent with the visuals. And yeah, with todays tech and bandwidth, thats not going to happen.

Anything that has real time physics simulations applied to it, in a multiplayer game, will have to disappear, or exist in only a aesthetic capacity (meaning you can walk/shoot through it, etc).

 

[Vegeta897]

So what the hell is new then? I was under the distinct impression that the building destruction was going to be more advanced.

They said it's part of the new Frostbite engine. What exactly is new about the destruction model?

 

[Stigmata]

I think what DICE is trying and failing to communicate is that most buildings in multiplayer maps will have a skeleton that cannot be demolished for gameplay reasons. i.e. no more seas of rubble on high-ticket matches.

 

[knut]

Sounds kind of apologist. Next are you going to say that the destruction isn't going to be fully dynamic, like they said?

i don't understand what you're getting at here. i called them out early on this thread about the obviously false and scripted demolition mechanics seen in the faultline videos, and was on the side of the fence that wasn't getting suckered into the hype about it. this recent news just confirms it isn't true, and i'm just saying ''oh well, i presumed this was the case, just hope they keep some destruction in''

i think it's shitty of them, so there's no apologist attitude from me for them here.

 

[Krynn72]

So what the hell is new then? I was under the distinct impression that the building destruction was going to be more advanced.

They said it's part of the new Frostbite engine. What exactly is new about the destruction model?

Well, as I said, this is all speculation. Maybe they're doing something actually new, but I suspect its simply a more polished version of what we're used to seeing. So, presuming my theory proves true, the new bit would simply be an increased number of damage models (though 18 seems kinda low, and I'm pretty sure BC2 had a similar amount) and physics simulated debris. Beyond that, they may do something fancier for the SP campaign, but I also doubt thats the case though. The earthquake simulation stuff is probably all baked out (no sense in having it calculate real time if its supposed to destroy the same way every time), and I can't see why they'd introduce a much more complicated destruction system for a singleplayer campaign that intends to be quasi-realistic (ie: you're not going around demolishing whole buildings like in Red Faction).

 

[Bad^Hat]

I think you guys misread this part of Ennui's post:

They mention something like the average building in BC2 consisting of an average of 18 destructible pieces, whereas in BF3 the facade of the building we see get destroyed by the AT4 in that rooftop part of the Fault Line trailer has something like 70 or 80 individual pieces.

He's talking about BC2 first, then BF3.

 

[Krynn72]

I think you guys misread this part of Ennui's post:

He's talking about BC2 first, then BF3.

Ah, I did misread that. Though I guarantee you a normal building wont have 70-80.

 

[Ren.182]

Some alpha screenshots taken on Operation Metro:

Not sure what settings they were taken at, I think it's a mix of high and low, there's a bug or compatibility issue apparently.

http://sitesmartgaming.com/forums/f73/battlefield-3-alpha-trial-screenshots-771/

Some things that are noticed by the player and want to share with you:
- Maps looks good.
- Graphic settings is bugged, probably since the recommended driver version is not yet released.
- Very low recoil, tough there is bulletspread.
- Bullets bounce off metal.
- Surround sound is REALLY good, the sound of the rockets that flew by my head made me smile, explosions are really nice, a good deep drum.
- You can see your own legs when you look down, tough your weapon will stick thru your own leg... =x
- You do not walk fully silent when crouching.
- Infinite sprint.
- Tank can swim and jump (funny bug rofl)

 

[Stigmata]

- You can see your own legs when you look down

****ing YES.

 

[Ennui]

720p screenshots with obviously low graphics settings.. and the dude was stupid enough to leave his name in the screenshot (the one with the APC and the lake/river).

Apparently DICE threatened to rip the guy a new one and sue him for $175k for breach of NDA. Also, the leak originated from a COD4 based forum, so I think the low resolution and graphics may be intentional as a kind of jab at BF3 to try and sow discontent with the visual fidelity.

 

[ríomhaire]

****ing YES.

Seriously that's what gets you excited?

Are you generally excited or is there something to be sarcastic about I don't understand?

 

[Stigmata]

The funny thing is, even on the lowest settings, it nearly looks as good as BC2 on maximum.

[edit] Rimfire: Everything else stated was pretty much a foregone conclusion, except for bullet bouncing which I don't really care about, and tank jumping which is a bug. Also I'm a huge sucker for first-person immersion.

 

[ríomhaire]

I generally find legs in first person immersion breaking to be honest.

 

[FrostedxB]

Playing BC2 right now and just thinking this is going to be a very pretty meh.

 

[Krynn72]

alpha screenshots

... must... resist....

 

[Stigmata]

Specs of the machine that this was running on:

AMD PhenomII 965 @ 4.5Gghz
4x2048MB DDR3-2133Mhz
2x 80GB Intel X-25 SSD on an Areca RAID controller.
1x GTX460, little bit clocked.

This rig gets 510fps on this screenshot so it looks like performance will be very, very good.

 

[Unfocused]

... must... resist....

PRE-alpha!

 

[Anthraxxx]

Not sure if I believe the 510 fps.... maybe 51.0 fps?

 

[Krynn72]

Not sure if I believe the 510 fps.... maybe 51.0 fps?

Fraps doesn't do decimals, and it means that the screenshot is fake, or at least the fraps bit is photoshopped in. Or maybe the build messed fraps up.

 

[Hectic Glenn]

Further worrying news on the BF3 on Steam situation, quote from Eurogamer:

US giant GameStop has said EA won't sell upcoming first-person shooter Battlefield 3 on Valve's Steam.

Financial research firm Baird spoke with GameStop bosses and in its report it said: "The upcoming EA title Battlefield 3 will be sold as a download through GameStop, but not through Steam."

"Given Steam's dominance – and insistence on users downloading a Steam client application – publishers are likely to be receptive to a competitive alternative," the Baird report read, as reported by Develop.

Still EA and Valve haven't commented on the whole thing, I wish someone would set the record straight. A financial research firm should not be the ones who have the explain this stuff.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-07-18-battlefield-3-wont-be-sold-on-steam

 

[unozero]

is EA run by a ape?
how dumb can they be?

 

[TwwIX]

I was looking forward to the game but all this bullshit that they're pulling is now really starting to piss me off.

 

[Hectic Glenn]

Me too, I almost wish I was young again and I wasn't aware of these kind of disputes. I would just wander into game shops and buy whatever had the shiniest box.

This comment from one user summarises exactly my stance on omitting Steam.

I want to buy the game on PC, and I want to buy it via Steam. If EA don't want to support my choices I'm not going to support them with my custom. I am a busy person these days. Steam makes things easy for me and EA are making it hard.

 

[Lobster]

It really sucks when its easier for a pirate to play a game than a paying customer.

I know its picky but I like having all my games in one place. I also find myself with little reason to trust EA in maintaining Origin after a couple of years, this road certainly hasn't improved the experience of playing Ubisoft or GFWL games in the last few years.

I still want to play the game though, which makes it really annoying. I may have to resort to... buying a boxed game! *stares ominously at his stack of broken and scratched discs that time forget*

 

[Ren.182]

I'm in the same boat. I want the game on Steam too and I don't trust EA to run an online distribution service. Any experience I've had with EA's online distribution has been a bad one.

If I were a developer/publisher I'd want my games on as many platforms/services as possible. But we all know EA love money and want as much of the profits for themselves. Which I guess is fair enough, but I can't see many customers liking Origin as much as people like Steam.

 

[Ennui]

EA has NOT officially commented on the Steam situation, other than to say that there is some conflict of interest (that apparently Valve is the source of... I think it has to do with availability of DLC through Steam copies of the game) but they have emphasized that they want to distribute it through as many channels as possible so they are not at all rejecting the idea of distribution via Steam as well as Origin, D2D, Impulse and other digital distribution platforms.

The analyst report quoted a few posts back doesn't mean anything, I'm pretty sure they're a third party that have no actual insider information about the situation.

I suspect BF3 will eventually be deployed through Steam, I'm just not entirely sure it will be at launch.

 

[Anthraxxx]

I hope it will be there in time for launch. I'd like to preorder to get my free Back to Karkand dlc among other things. If not, I may just end up getting it on Origin. While I'd rather have all my games in one place, my interest in this game is enough such that If I have to then I'll buy it on Origin.

*sadface*

 

[Omnomnick]

If EA are attempting to slow Steam successful to promote Origin, they can go screw themselves. If I can't get it on Steam I'm not going to support their distribution network, I'll buy it from a store.

Come on EA, don't be stupid, put the damn game on Steam.

 

[Krynn72]

"Given Steam's dominance – and insistence on users downloading a Steam client application – publishers are likely to be receptive to a competitive alternative," the Baird report read, as reported by Develop.

Um, doesn't gamestop require you to download their downloader?

My guess is that it will be available on Steam at launch, but not before. That way all pre-orders must be done through Origin.

 

[Bad^Hat]

It really sucks when its easier for a pirate to play a game than a paying customer.

I don't understand how this applies to this scenario. Will I be able to pirate it through Steam?

 

[Stormy]

I really dont want origan on my machine, ive already got steam setup how i like, my friends etc why on earth would i want to do that all again?? If it takes ages to release on steam then I guess I'll have to wait

Also

The publishers of Modern Warfare 3 have filed legal papers in America to try and get control of the modernwarfare3.com domain name.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/14188406